Hi Wilderness,
Monday, March 06, 2000, 11:25:41 AM, Martin Connaughton wrote:
WF> doug fyi: a voice of reason
You consider what you sent to be a good example of solid reasoning?
>>... GM crops and foodstuffs are rigorously tested
Not rigorously enough for many of us.
>>to determine whether or not they are "substantially equivalent" to
>>conventional ones (i.e. when analysed in a laboratory, in all
>>important respects their characteristics are the same - within
>>normal variation).
There is no precedent in nature. Check out Chuck Benbook's (ex-head of
the National Research Council's Board on agriculture and sanet
subscriber) website for more information on the subject. The criteria
for "substantial equivalence" is deficient, and that opinion is share
by many of the European Community countries.
>>We can not provide a blanket license for GMOs, but neither would it
>>make any sense to condemn the technology out of hand.
The question is precisely the precautionary principle.
>>The human race (now 6 billion strong and growing) has entered an era
>>in which conventional approaches to biological problems are reaching
>>their limits.
Those same shakers and movers of conventional agriculture are also
responsible for promoting and commercializing GMOs.
>>Agriculture needs solutions to problems such as chemical dependence,
>>drought, high salinity and pests; solutions that conventional
>>methods are not likely to provide.
Then more biologically and ecologically compatible research should be
funded by public institutions.
>>Similarly, demands for high quality affordable medical care for an
>>ageing population, are unlikely to be met by conventional methods
>>alone.
A typically unsubstantiated remark (among many others). I myself have
*never* opposed GMO technology in biomedical applications to correct
genetic pathologies.
>>There may be risks associated with some GMOs, just as there
>>were risks associated with the introduction of other technologies
>>that later proved safe and invaluable. Consider electricity.
A stupid comparison, IMHO.
Douglas Hinds - CeDeCoR, A.C.
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil
(Center for Rural and Community Development,
a Mexican non-profit organization)
Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco, Loma Bonita, Oaxaca
& Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico
Tel: 011 522 713 2888 (Direct at present)
U.S. Fax Mailbox (email linked) 1 630 300 0555
dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net,
dhinds@prodigy.net.mx
Todo el mundo cabe en una tasita, sabiendolo acomodar.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>>Subject: EMBO Statement on Genetically Modified Organisms and the
>>Public
>>
>>AgBioView - http://www.agbioworld.org
>>
>>From: David.McConnell@tcd.ie (David McConnell)
>>
>>Congratulations on your important statement which I have signed.
>>
>>Please also see the EMBO statement attached which I helped to prepare.
>>
>>David McConnell,
>>Member of EMBO
>>======================
>>EMBO's Statement on Genetically Modified Organisms and the Public
>>
>>Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were first created about 30
>>years ago. Nevertheless, they were for a long time of little
>>interest to the general public. This disinterest seemed to reflect
>>the ease with which GMOs began to solve problems in medicine and
>>agriculture. For example, renewable supplies of human insulin
>>produced by genetically modified bacteria quietly replaced the
>>failing supply of beef insulin used to treat growing numbers of
>>human diabetics. This application of GMOs was attended by no
>>fanfares, despite the fact that it averted an ugly crisis.
>> Public disinterest changed into fear when it was revealed that
>>medical blood products had been contaminated by HIV and Hepatitis
>>Virus B, causing many deaths. More recently, the attempt to contain
>>the BSE (Mad cow disease) scare created a genuine state of concern,
>>particularly in the UK. GMOs were not involved in these accidents.
>>Nevertheless in the public eye, GMOs, viruses, bacteria and DNA are
>>all somehow infective agents, and therefore dangerous. Such
>>perceptions of GMOs are among the more specific reasons that
>>Europeans fear food derived from GMOs, and oppose the release of
>>GMOs in the field. More generally, there appears to be a profound
>>resistance to global agro-business. Likewise, the generation of a
>>state of "heightened consciousness" about GMOs is a prerequisite for
>>the survival of the eco-corporations, such as Greenpeace. Finally,
>>it is important for scientists to recall the horrible ways that
>>ideas borrowed from Genetics were contorted and misused earlier this
>>century. More sensitivity to public concerns is needed in light of
>>history.
>>In summary, it is important that scientists understand that the
>>public's fears of GMOs are due to sound scepticism about a more
>>general issue: the potential for negligence in monitoring food
>>safety and health hazards. Unfortunately, that scepticism is
>>strongly coloured by ideological preconceptions and insufficient
>>understanding. There is not much that scientists as scientists can
>>or should do about the ideological components, but there are things
>>that can be done to increase understanding.
>>Is eating "foreign" DNA or protein a health hazard? If so, we have
>>been living dangerously throughout our entire evolution. Everything
>>we eat contains foreign DNA and protein. Can we say then that any
>>and all GMOs are safe? Certainly not! After all we do know about
>>toxins and other poisonous proteins (many conventional plants
>>contain these naturally). That is why GM crops and foodstuffs are
>>rigorously tested to determine whether or not they are
>>"substantially equivalent" to conventional ones (i.e. when analysed
>>in a laboratory, in all important respects their characteristics are
>>the same - within normal variation). We can not provide a blanket
>>license for GMOs, but neither would it make any sense to condemn the
>>technology out of hand. As scientists we need to insist that every
>>GMO product be treated with the same concern as any equivalent
>>traditional product. We need to insist equally strongly that reason
>>and fact temper attacks against science and research that arise in
>>the GMO debate. Under no circumstances can terrorism replace
>>rational discussion.
>>The risk that someGMOs might have detrimental environmental
>>consequences (many are aimed at reducing environmental damage) must
>>be studied, and balanced against the certainty that more
>>conventional methods will continue to seriously damage the
>>environment. Furthermore, perceptions of the risks inherent in GMOs
>>ought to be tempered by an understanding that we are awash in a sea
>>of natural mutant variants; populations of all organisms are made up
>>of mutant variants, and genetic exchange between different species
>>of organisms is a natural, if low frequency, event. The genetic
>>engineering that humans perform is comparatively insignificant.
>>Nevertheless, we need to avoid the very unlikely events that could
>>have undesirable consequences. That is why many safety tests are
>>carried out on traditional crops as well as on GM crops. Without
>>correct field tests of GMOs, the tangible ecological benefits that
>>they offer are at risk. For example, genetically modified plants can
>>be used to make biodegradable plastics, rather than using petroleum.
>>Likewise, crops that require less intensive chemical support, or
>>less water are clearly necessary for a sustainable agriculture.
>>Also, modified crops that produce cheap, edible vaccines, or high
>>levels of a vitamin A precursor to prevent a common form of
>>blindness that afflicts millions in the third world, will soon be a
>>reality
>>Some of this research is viewed as "unnatural". Again this is a
>>matter of perception. Equally "unnatural" have been the millennia of
>>breeding to exploit the natural, mutant variation of organisms to
>>"create" plants and animals with more desirable properties eg
>>increased yield or size, pest resistance and fast growth rates.
>>The human race (now 6 billion strong and growing) has entered an era
>>in which conventional approaches to biological problems are reaching
>>their limits. Agriculture needs solutions to problems such as
>>chemical dependence, drought, high salinity and pests; solutions
>>that conventional methods are not likely to provide. Similarly,
>>demands for high quality affordable medical care for an ageing
>>population, are unlikely to be met by conventional methods alone.
>>There may be risks associated with some GMOs, just as there were
>>risks associated with the introduction of other technologies that
>>later proved safe and invaluable. Consider electricity. But those
>>risks should be weighed against the potential benefits. Without
>>doubt many GMOs offer genuine opportunities to solve crucial
>>problems faced by the entire human race.
>>For all of these reasons, and in particular in view of the enormous
>>problems confronting mankind, molecular biologists need to continue both
>>carrying out research and communicating with the public about the benefits
>>and risks, as well as the rigour of current testing of GMOs. EMBO
>>recommends that the current polarising debate be replaced by reasoned
>>discussions. We must establish a platform that supports all who share an
>>interest in improving standards of living while balancing the potential of
>>science, the needs of society and the requirements of long term, safe
>>solutions to global problems.
>>
>>
>>________________________________________________________________
WF> Martin Connaughton
WF> Wilderness Flowers
WF> 223 North Guadalupe St. pmb # 159
WF> Santa Fe, NM 87501
WF> zone 3-4-5 depending on mother nature .. zone 5 this year and no snow
WF> 5059898337 office/home
WF> 5057578337 farm april/november
WF> 5059203421 cell
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 12 2000 - 14:00:33 EST